github-actions[bot] commented on issue #2994:
Subscribe to Label Action
cc @peterhuene
<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "wasmtime:api"Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:
- peterhuene: wasmtime:api
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the <code>.github/subscribe-to-label.json</code> configuration file.
Learn more.
</details>
akirilov-arm commented on issue #2994:
Well, on the plus side all AArch64 tests pass (including the new additions), but now there is a macOS failure, even though my patch is not supposed to change anything for that platform (since it is not AArch64-based in CI).
@alexcrichton Any suggestions?
alexcrichton commented on issue #2994:
Oh that's ok, that's a known flaky test failure
alexcrichton commented on issue #2994:
(cc @pchickey on the flaky test failure)
<details>
---- wasi_tokio::poll_oneoff_files stdout ---- preopen: "/var/folders/24/8k48jl6d249_n_qfxwsl6xvm0000gn/T/wasi_common_poll_oneoff_filesIp62sX" guest stderr: thread 'main' panicked at 'assertion failed: `(left == right)` left: `1`, right: `2`: should return 2 events, got: [Event { userdata: 1, error: 0, type: 1, fd_readwrite: EventFdReadwrite { nbytes: 1, flags: 0 } }]', src/bin/poll_oneoff_files.rs:128:5 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace === Error: error while testing Wasm module 'poll_oneoff_files' Caused by: wasm trap: unreachable wasm backtrace: 0: 0xa30f - <unknown>!__rust_start_panic 1: 0xa078 - <unknown>!rust_panic 2: 0x9c0e - <unknown>!std::panicking::rust_panic_with_hook::h7d1c07b3a075203c 3: 0x926e - <unknown>!std::panicking::begin_panic_handler::{{closure}}::h3513767ae6c4d95c 4: 0x91af - <unknown>!std::sys_common::backtrace::__rust_end_short_backtrace::h0bbf8ae75ca302c2 5: 0x9ab2 - <unknown>!rust_begin_unwind 6: 0xf595 - <unknown>!core::panicking::panic_fmt::h2e0bed4f7ae7c673 7: 0x100e2 - <unknown>!core::panicking::assert_failed::inner::h46820b6921ccb429 8: 0x2838 - <unknown>!core::panicking::assert_failed::h2221a87facc4d20e 9: 0x192c - <unknown>!poll_oneoff_files::main::hab2a34e94500766e 10: 0x251b - <unknown>!std::sys_common::backtrace::__rust_begin_short_backtrace::h5bcb8183023cbb77 11: 0x2552 - <unknown>!std::rt::lang_start::{{closure}}::hd9d6d2df6808b2fc 12: 0xa123 - <unknown>!std::rt::lang_start_internal::h1e63ab493c96e529 13: 0x2296 - <unknown>!__original_main 14: 0x575 - <unknown>!_start 15: 0x13326 - <unknown>!_start.command_export note: run with `WASMTIME_BACKTRACE_DETAILS=1` environment variable to display more information thread 'wasi_tokio::poll_oneoff_files' panicked at 'assertion failed: `(left == right)` left: `1`, right: `0`: the test returned a termination value with a non-zero status code (1) which indicates a failure', /rustc/53cb7b09b00cbea8754ffb78e7e3cb521cb8af4b/library/test/src/lib.rs:193:5 stack backtrace: 0: rust_begin_unwind at /rustc/53cb7b09b00cbea8754ffb78e7e3cb521cb8af4b/library/std/src/panicking.rs:493:5 1: core::panicking::panic_fmt at /rustc/53cb7b09b00cbea8754ffb78e7e3cb521cb8af4b/library/core/src/panicking.rs:92:14 2: core::panicking::assert_failed::inner at /rustc/53cb7b09b00cbea8754ffb78e7e3cb521cb8af4b/library/core/src/panicking.rs:129:27 3: core::panicking::assert_failed at /rustc/53cb7b09b00cbea8754ffb78e7e3cb521cb8af4b/library/core/src/panicking.rs:143:5 4: test::assert_test_result at /rustc/53cb7b09b00cbea8754ffb78e7e3cb521cb8af4b/library/test/src/lib.rs:193:5 5: wasm_tests::wasi_tokio::poll_oneoff_files::{{closure}} at /Users/runner/work/wasmtime/wasmtime/target/debug/build/test-programs-5789f8ca0671ec50/out/wasi_tests.rs:714:5 6: core::ops::function::FnOnce::call_once at /rustc/53cb7b09b00cbea8754ffb78e7e3cb521cb8af4b/library/core/src/ops/function.rs:227:5 7: core::ops::function::FnOnce::call_once at /rustc/53cb7b09b00cbea8754ffb78e7e3cb521cb8af4b/library/core/src/ops/function.rs:227:5 note: Some details are omitted, run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=full` for a verbose backtrace. failures: wasi_tokio::poll_oneoff_files
</details>
akirilov-arm commented on issue #2994:
Oh that's ok, that's a known flaky test failure
OK, I started another run - hopefully it will pass this time.
uweigand commented on issue #2994:
This looks good to me now, as far as s390x is concerned. Thanks!
alexcrichton commented on issue #2994:
:+1:
Last updated: Dec 23 2024 at 12:05 UTC